from the deep-well-of-dysfunction dept

When the entertainment and broadband industries' "six strikes" anti-piracy regime first launched a few years ago, most people (outside of Hollywood) realized it wouldn't work for a number of reasons. One, data has pretty consistently shown that such graduated response anti-piracy systems -- whether three "strikes" or six -- don't work, and in fact may actually make things worse. Two, even partner ISP execs I spoke to ahead of the program's launch made it clear they knew the program wouldn't do much, with most infringers simply hiding their behavior behind proxy servers of VPNs.

Publicly, the firm created to run the program (the Center for Copyright Information) has frequently tried to claim the program is a smashing success, often using unreliable, contradictory evidence to try and suggest pushing ISPs into the role of content nannies was a wonderful idea. But privately, Hollywood and the MPAA have acknowledged the program isn't doing much, though they're quick to argue that this is only because it hasn't yet been "brought up to scale."

Amusingly, some of the very same Hollywood voices that pushed so hard for six strikes and ignored warnings that it wouldn't work, are now calling the program an abject failure. The Internet Security Task Force, a coalition of smaller studios, which counts copyright troll Voltage Pictures among its members, has come out swinging this week against six strikes in a press release, calling the program a "sham":

"We’ve always known the Copyright Alert System was ineffective, as it allows people to steal six movies from us before they get an educational leaflet. But now we have the data to prove that it’s a sham," Gill comments. "On our film ‘Expendables 3,’ which has been illegally viewed more than 60 million times, the CAS only allowed 0.3% of our infringement notices through to their customers. The other 99.7% of the time, the notices went in the trash,” he adds."

One, ISTF doesn't appear to know how the program Hollywood pushed for actually works, since users receive an "educational leaflet" the first time they're found to infringe. Steps two through six then include "mitigation measures" that may involve having your connection throttled or finding your broadband access temporarily suspended until you've clearly acknowledged you've been naughty. Users then have the honor of paying a $35 fee if they'd like to fight the accusation. After the sixth strike nothing happens, and nobody tracks offenders between ISPs, something Hollywood is surely eager to "remedy" with program updates.

ISTF notes that the five major ISPs participating in six strikes (AT&T U-verse, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon FiOS), saw a 4.54% increase in infringements during the fourth quarter of last year. Two non-participating ISPs, Charter and Cox (the latter of which is being sued by BMG for allegedly ignoring piracy), saw a 25.47% decrease in infringements during that same period. Assuming you can trust Hollywood math here (never a wise bet), the ISTF claims this is proof of the fact that ISPs aren't taking piracy seriously:

"These alarming numbers show that the CAS is little more than talking point utilized to suggest these five ISPs are doing something to combat piracy when in actuality, their customers are free to continue pirating content with absolutely no consequences," said ISTF member Nicolas Chartier, CEO of Voltage. "As for its laughable six strikes policy, would any American retailer wait for someone to rob them six times before handing them an educational leaflet? Of course not, they call the cops the first time around."

Of course if non-participating ISPs are seeing infringement drop massively while participating ISPs are seeing a slight rise, that would seem to suggest that graduated response programs actually make things worse, which is what data Hollywood ignored said in the first place. The ISTF's solution for the States is to implement an uglier version of Canada's Copyright Modernization Act, which gives ISPs safe harbor only if they agree to pass on all infringement notices. While the Canadian law caps damages, it hasn't done much to thwart copyright trolls, who appear to just be making up for the income reduction by shaking down Canadian users on greater scale.

While these smaller studios are solely focused on greasing the rails for their "settlement-o-matic" shake downs, it's only a matter of time before the MPAA and the larger studios start pushing for "improvements" to six strikes as well, whether that's an organization that tracks offenders between ISPs, or a frontal assault on VPNs and proxy services. And that's just it, these studios consistently whine about the need for aggressive enforcement policies that have been proven not to work, and when they fail the answer isn't adaptation of the business models to the modern age, it's an expansion of already-bad ideas that clearly aren't working. It's a bottomless well of dysfunction. Unfortunately for Hollywood, any expansion of six strikes is going to have a steeper uphill climb in the post SOPA era, which may hinder the program from mutating into something truly monstrous.

from the troll-troll-trolling dept

Ever since the infamous "six strikes" Copyright Alert System (CAS) was "voluntarily" agreed to (under threat that Congress would enact legislation) between some big ISPs and the MPAA/RIAA, people have pointed out that it was only a foot in the door, which would then likely be used in lawsuits either against the individuals or against ISPs. A year ago, we noted that prolific copyright troll Malibu Media had subpoenaed Verizon to try to get the six strikes data on someone it was suing, and now the company has done the same thing again with Comcast. While Malibu Media eventually dropped the request for info from Verizon, it seems likely that this type of request will become more common.

And it's yet another reason why the whole six strikes/CAS program is so troubling. It involves a list of accusations, not convictions, of copyright violations, where the person being accused has no real recourse (there is a limited right to appeal, which costs money and does not even allow you to make use of basic defenses, such as noting that a work is in the public domain). While defenders of the program didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with this sort of "guilty until proven innocent with limited defenses" setup, in part because it wasn't a court case, the fact that this data may now be used in court cases should be insulting to basic concepts of due process.

from the because-of-course dept

Academic research has already shown pretty clearly that so called "graduated response" programs, in which ISPs send out notices concerning alleged infringement under a varying number of "strikes," don't actually work, but a failure to be effective has never stopped the legacy entertainment industry from pursuing useless policies and programs. Earlier this week, the Center for Copyright Information (CCI), which administers the Copyright Alert System (CAS), better known as the "six strikes" program, finally released some data about the program. While CCI quickly declared it a success, a quick look at the data suggests a rather dismal failure in terms of actually mitigating any behavior.

The proponents of the program insist that mere notices (i.e., "education") would lead people to suddenly stop their unauthorized usage ways, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

While, yes, that shows a decreasing slope, there's always going to be a decreasing slope due to the nature of time between alerts. And, really, if "education" was effective, you'd expect to see a much more massive decrease. As TorrentFreak notes:

...the repeat warning percentage of 30% is quite high, especially when one takes into account that people who received their first alert during the last month had little time to generate a second one. In addition, the detection rate is relatively low, not to mention subscribers’ use of anonymizing tools.

It appears that U.S. pirates are relatively persistent. In France, for example, only 9% of all the warned copyright infringers received two warnings, and that was after two full years. Also, only 0.029% of the French got a third strike.

While these “strikes” programs have their differences, the high number of second warnings in the U.S. stands out.

In other words, the data certainly suggests the deterrent effect of the program isn't particularly powerful. Furthermore, it appears that there's a rather significant error rate. After the 3rd and 4th alert, people can challenge the claims, and there were 47 successful challenges (out of 265 total challenges). Most of the successful challenges involved people claiming that others were using their account, but it certainly highlights the problem with these programs, when you are declared guilty first, and can then "pay" to challenge, you'd hope there wouldn't be so many "errors" in the program. Either way, given the fact that these programs really appear to have little overall impact on the end user, it's not surprising that so few challenge them in the first place.

from the strike-one? dept

TorrentFreak has discovered that the Center for Copyright Information (CCI), better known as the company running the whole "six strikes" scheme in the US, somehow had its company status revoked last year for reasons unknown. However, this could have serious consequences:

“If entity’s status is revoked then articles of incorporation / organization shall be void and all powers conferred upon such entity are declared inoperative, and, in the case of a foreign entity, the certificate of foreign registration shall be revoked and all powers conferred hereunder shall be inoperative,” the DCRA explains.

It also may face penalties and fines. It appears that this may have just been a paperwork screwup, which does happen, but given the organization's overall mission, you would think that they would have been a lot more careful dotting their i's and crossing their t's.

from the this-time... dept

Right after the "six strikes" Copyright Alert System (CAS) launched, I heard from a few people saying that it was actually likely to increase their file sharing activities, in part because it clearly laid out the "risks" of doing so. In other words, rather than educating people that file sharing was "wrong," the CAS seemed to clarify the actual risks involved. Of course, some of the CAS punishments can be somewhat severe, so I do wonder how accurate those predictions were. However, apparently some folks have tried and failed to get themselves a strike under the CAS system, according to a report in DailyDot (which, bizarrely, never seems to name who conducted the actual study). They chose some popular content -- including some Rihanna songs, since Rihanna songs have been targeted under both France's and New Zealand's three strikes systems. They found torrents via The Pirate Bay, downloaded the works and then left the files available for weeks... and nothing.

Obviously, this is just one test on one ISP (Verizon) with just a few files. That's hardly indicative of what's actually happening with the overall CAS. However, it does make me wonder, if we start seeing more, similar reports, if it will lead more people to actually look at the whole system as making it more enticing to share files than before. Obviously, that would be the exact opposite of what the program's supporters would like.

At the very least, however, it makes me wonder (yet again) why the industry is putting so much effort towards punishment and enforcement, and so little towards actually adding value and giving people good reasons to buy.

from the more-futility-and-stupidity dept

The nationwide Six Strikes Copyright Alert System continues to roll out with many of the details still shrouded in secrecy. The few aspects of the system that can be guaranteed are negative: open WiFi could become a thing of the past and non-infringers are likely to be swept up in the CAS net.

Say you send out one of those mailers for a subscription to Time Magazine. And you check the box that says bill me later. Let's say that they start sending you Time Magazine, and after 2 or 3 issues they send you the bill, and you never pay. But in the meantime you have 6 or 8 issues before they cut you off for not paying. My proposal is let's adopt Six Strikes and knock somebody off the postal system. You don't pay for it, you don't get to use the postal service any longer. Or let's say somebody blows through a toll plaza 6 times, does that mean you don't ever use the highways anymore?

Now, some might argue that this is no different than, say, revoking a driver's license after certain number of DUIs. I'd argue it's closer to punishing a boiler-room scammer with loss of telephone privileges. It's one thing to limit one specific activity (driving/driving drunk) as a deterrent. (After all, the person with multiple DUIs can still walk places, use public transportation and drink to his heart's content.) It's quite another to block off an entire form of communication simply because the infringement was committed via an internet connection.

This urge to sever infringers from their internet connections (or slow the connection to nearly-unusable speeds) stems from the copyright industries' paranoia about all things internet-related. One needs look no further than the MPAA's knee jerk reaction to Google's plan to provide 1gb up/down internet to Kansas City. From its limited viewpoint, the only thing anyone does with a fast internet connection is commit high speed infringement.

This paranoia goes hand-in-hand with the industries' general panic over every new technology that threatens their control over distribution.

The function of copyright law as it has evolved is indeed to disrupt innovation and to disrupt new technologies that threaten the interest of copyright holders. Frankly all copyright legislation has been in reaction to new technologies that are developed. And copyright law has sought as its purpose, interfering with, limiting, pampering and indeed disrupting innovation of technology, business plans, even disruption of consumer choice.

Bridges refers to the Six Strikes plan as "Soft SOPA." Even though SOPA itself was killed off, certain aspects still remain and are being incorporated into other legislation and "voluntary" initiatives like the Copyright Alert System.

Even though SOPA failed, SOPA is now in some respects the law of the land. Because we now have Soft SOPA. We have the government putting pressure on advertising networks and putting pressure on payment processors, unofficially, to take the same measures that SOPA was going to require them to [do]. But now it's a sort of 'if you know what's good for you, could you pretty please, wink-wink' method.

There are payment processors notifying companies that they are no longer willing to process payments for them. It's happening. It happened with three of my clients... [W]e have advertisers blacklisting certain sites, and telling sites. 'We're not going to place advertising on your site because people tell us you're not a good site.' So that's happening. And it's being done as "Oh it's just a private decision."

In the long run, it appears the RIAA, MPAA and various others have still managed to push their agenda through. The only difference is the lack of an official government mandate. Instead, we're seeing something a bit shadier -- SOPA's directives presented as "cooperation" between the copyright industry and private companies.

This is still business as usual for the industry and their support system within the US government. As was pointed out here (both before and after SOPA's defeat), the legal authority to shut down foreign sites the RIAA/MPAA sought when pushing this bill seemed redundant. ICE and the DOJ were already shuttering foreign sites without the aid of this supposedly essential anti-piracy legislation.

What's happening now is a continuation of that process. The content industries already have the DOJ/ICE working for them. Now, they're hoping that a blend of "voluntary" alert systems and heavy-handed "suggestions" will finish the job. And whoever gets mangled in the machinery is simply the price of "doing business." After all, it won't affect anyone but the sites and users knocked offline.

from the this-is-going-to-be-a-disaster dept

Reader David Sutherland emailed us this week about a DMCA notice that he received via his MediaFire account. The notice, which we've included below (including all of the crappy formatting) claimed that he was using MediaFire to host "one of the following files: Downton Abbey, CONTRABAND (2012), GRIMM (2011), House M.D., MAN WITH THE IRON FISTS, THE, The Office." The "file" they claimed was one of those TV shows/movies was "Cantha Cartography Made Easy 2009.tpf" which is actually a game mod for Guild Wars. You might possibly be able to argue that ArenaNet, makers of Guild Wars could have a copyright claim (maybe, sorta), but that's not who sent the notice and it's not what they claimed it was. Sutherland notes that he set up this MediaFire account solely to host game mods and has never hosted any other content there.

So, who sent the DMCA takedown? Dtecnet. And, as you can see from the messy, messy DMCA notice below, they tried to takedown a huge list of files. If Sutherland's experience is anything to go by, you have to wonder how many of them are actually infringing.

Of course, we've seen plenty of bogus DMCA takedowns. It happens all the time. But this one is doubly important, because it's from DtecNet, a division of MarkMonitor. MarkMonitor/Dtecnet also just happen to be the company providing the key monitoring for the new "six strikes" Copyright Alert System (CAS). The Center for Copyright Information has a web page on its site about an "independent expert assessment" of MarkMonitor's antipiracy methodologies. Except... that page is completely blank. Perhaps, if they're looking to do an analysis, figuring out why they're taking down content that has nothing to do with what they claim would be a good place to start.

Good thing the CAS works entirely based on accusations, without needing to show any proof at all, huh?

from the well,-there's-that dept

The various ways in which the big ISPs would implement their version of the "six strikes" Copyright Alert System had mostly been leaked over the past few months, but there had been nothing coming out of Comcast. AT&T planned to block "frequently visited websites" after the fourth strike. Verizon planned to throttle speeds so low that it would drive users crazy. It looks like Comcast is doing something similar to Time Warner, which means that after four accusations (not convictions, not proof of guilt, just accusations), anyone using the account of someone who hits that strike will have all of their browsing hijacked and sent to a landing page that they cannot get around. Oddly, for reasons that don't make much sense, the page that TorrentFreak links to on Comcast's site disappeared. If I go to it, I get a 404 not found. But if I do a search on the keyword "mitigation," it still shows up in the index. Then I click, and the page is still gone. Either way, while it's technically true that they're not "cutting off" people, they are clearly cutting them off from the wider web.

"If a consumer fails to respond to several Copyright Alerts, Comcast will place a persistent alert in any web browser under that account until the account holder contacts Comcast's Customer Security Assurance professionals to discuss and help resolve the matter,"

No information is given on what it means to "resolve the matter." It's hardly a surprise that Comcast would choose the most extreme option, considering that it owns NBC Universal, whose execs supposedly drove much of the discussion around the CAS system. In the meantime, are we still supposed to believe, as per the cheery video that the Center for Copyright Information put out, that this is all for the benefit of ISP users?

from the a-political-rallying-point dept

Via Slashdot, we learn that a gubernatorial candidate from New Jersey has staked out a clear position against the new "six strikes" Copyright Alert System. Carl Bermanson, a regular in New Jersey politics who entered the race a few weeks ago, made a nice statement about why six strikes is so problematic. Basically: why is it the ISPs' business at all?

"The
internet has become an essential part of living in the 21st century, it uses public infrastructure and it
is time we treat it as a public utility. The electric company has no say over what you power with their
service, the ISPs have no right to decide what you can and can not download". He went on to say that
while he believes copyright infringement is unethical, it is not surprising that as the law evolves to
disrespect the public domain, that the public would grow to disrespect copyrights.

While some will just brush this off, it is significant in that, to date, most politicians have been playing down the whole six strikes thing as a "good example of voluntary agreements," without realizing just how angry it's making people, and how it's giving them less reason to respect copyright at all.